Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
Biodiversity reporting: standardization, materiality, and
assurance
Viktor Elliot 1, Kristina Jonäll 1, Mari Paananen 1,
Jan Bebbington 2 and Giovanna Michelon 3
This paper examines the evolving landscape of biodiversity
reporting standards, describes their underlying rationale and
anticipated effects, and highlights unresolved issues that
impede the provision of ‘good’ information to markets and other
report users. While a variety of reporting regulations exist, they
do not point to a common ground for reporting. They address
different aspects of corporate biodiversity impact and adopt
different conceptions of assurance and materiality. Given the
early stage of this field, further research is needed on what best
practice informational governance may entail.
Addresses
1
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
2
Lancaster University, United Kingdom
3
Bristol University, United Kingdom
Corresponding author:
mari.paananen@handels.gu.se ( Paananen, Mari),
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 38:101435
This review comes from a themed issue on Climate Finance, Risks
and Accounting
Edited by Rosella Car, Othmar Lehner and Olaf Weber
Available online xxxx
Received: 14 September 2023; Accepted: 16 February 2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2024.101435
1877–3435/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is
an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Introduction
The planet is undergoing transformation, driven by human
activities that threaten biodiversity, with profound con­
sequences for ecosystems and human well-being [19]. In
response, international efforts have sought to instigate
transformation across all sectors of society, emphasizing
sustainable and responsible practices. This includes an ex­
pectation for corporations to play a pivotal role in mitigating
the adverse effects of their operations on biodiversity and
nature [51]. In this context, corporate biodiversity reporting
emerges as an instrument for enhancing transparency,
www.sciencedirect.com
]]
]]]]]]
]]
encouraging responsible behavior, and fostering environ­
mental stewardship [13,34,39]. This paper examines the
evolving landscape of biodiversity reporting standards, de­
scribes their underlying rationale and anticipated effects,
and highlights unresolved issues that impede the provision
of ‘good’ information to markets and other report users.
Corporate engagement with environmental preservation
has gained prominence in the last decade as the ramifi­
cations of biodiversity loss have become apparent
[18,28,41]. International agreements, such as the Con­
vention on Biological Diversity (CBD), underscore the
importance of biodiversity in global sustainability
agendas and highlight the expected role of corporations.
As a result, the corporate sector faces growing expecta­
tions to contribute to biodiversity preservation and to
provide relevant information on their actions and out­
comes [36]. Numerous initiatives and standards aim to
guide corporate biodiversity reporting [44]. Prominent
among these are the European Sustainability Reporting
Standards (ESRS) under the European Union’s Corpo­
rate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD),1 the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the International
Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), ISO/TC 331, and
the Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures
(TNFD). These standards (some are still under devel­
opment) reflect a growing recognition of the need for
systematic, transparent, and comparable disclosure of
corporate dependencies and impacts on biodiversity.
The rationale underlying these standards is multifaceted
[42]. In the first instance, the materiality of biodiversity is­
sues drives the demand for standardized and reliable in­
formation [2,3,8,27]. Furthermore, the alignment with
international frameworks, such as the CBD, provides a
powerful norm for corporations to adhere to. Anticipated
effects are equally manifold. Enhanced biodiversity reporting
can stimulate corporate accountability, influence investment
decisions, facilitate stakeholder engagement, and promote a
culture of environmental stewardship within organizations.
Despite this, several challenges persist [26,4]. The mea­
surement and quantification of corporate biodiversity im­
pact remain complex, often involving the identification and
characterization of ecological interactions over a long period
1
Directive (EU) 2022/2464.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 68:101435
2 Climate Finance, Risks and Accounting
of time. Determining materiality, a cornerstone of re­
porting, is challenging due to varying perspectives on what
is material [9,11,18,26,28,30,37]. Moreover, ensuring the
accuracy, reliability, and comparability of reported data
poses significant hurdles, demanding rigorous methodolo­
gies and data validation. Without confidence in the data
presented, biodiversity information cannot be assured, and
without assurance, its credibility is undermined.
We contribute within this context by providing an ana­
lysis of emerging standards, probing into their rationale,
and delineating their expected effects on corporate be­
havior and market dynamics. Additionally, we examine
the unresolved issues that undermine the provision of
‘good’ information through corporate reporting. By ex­
amining the complexities and challenges associated with
reporting on biodiversity, this study aims to offer in­
sights that inform the development of robust biodi­
versity reporting standards that cater to the needs of
markets and other report users.
The remainder of the paper is organized thus. First, the
fundamental principles underlying corporate biodi­
versity reporting standards are presented. Second, we
review the literature on materiality and characterize the
approach to materiality adopted by each of these stan­
dards. Third, the significance of assurance is examined
along with a discussion of how assurance varies de­
pending on different types of assurance providers (e.g.
traditional accounting firms2 that audit financial reports
or other more technically oriented assurance providers3)
and the level of assurance sought (which includes as­
surance of full reports or a limited number of data
points) [29,5].
Evolving biodiversity standards and related
policies
While the GRI has had existing reporting requirements
on biodiversity, it revised and issued a new standard in
this area in January 2024. At the same time, other re­
porting initiatives have emerged. Table 1 outlines the
five most relevant corporate biodiversity standards, ca­
tegorized by their (i) application area and target audi­
ence, (ii) focus areas and objectives, (iii) measurement
approach, (iv) reporting requirements, and (v) voluntary
or mandatory nature.
These standards exhibit variation across all dimensions
(i–v) and address diverse aspects of biodiversity re­
porting, encompassing impacts and dependencies, risks
and opportunities, management approach, and govern­
ance. The measurement approaches employed range
2
For instance, PwC, KPMG, Deloitte, E&Y, etc.
3
For instance, British Standards Institute, Carbon Verification
Service LLC, Earthcon, etc.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 68:101435
from primary and secondary biodiversity data collection
to the assessment of financial exposure. While some of
the standards entail specific reporting requirements,
others adopt a more flexible ‘comply or explain’ ap­
proach.4 The intended audience for these standards
comprises internal and external company stakeholders
including auditors, shareholders, governments, banks
and other investors, and financial analysts.
A frequently reported problem associated with these
frameworks is the lack of standardized metrics and
consistent ways to measure biodiversity interactions [43].
If one takes this perspective, the heterogeneous ap­
proaches recommended by these standards are likely to
generate diversity in reporting practices, making it
challenging for the companies’ stakeholders to interpret
and assess the quality of biodiversity reporting. At the
same time, given the heterogeneity of the operating
contexts within which companies are seeking to act, it is
hard to imagine that any single standard could enu­
merate all the possible disclosures of relevance, nor the
methods that should be used to achieve these outcomes.
Moreover, each standard adopts a particular perspective
on corporate–biosphere connections. Creating a frame­
work that demonstrates each standard’s focus and role is
likely to be more valuable. Such a framework would
offer greater clarity of what is being reported, highlight if
comparisons are possible, and enhance transparency of
the reporting landscape. Relatedly, the ‘Align’5 project
seeks to integrate and harmonize reporting initiatives on
broader sustainability issues with nature- and biodi­
versity-focused reporting standards. A higher level
framing of reporting requirements is essential for
achieving a more cohesive reporting landscape that
supports the collective goals of sustainability and bio­
diversity.
To further this goal, the next subsection examines ma­
teriality, which is treated differently in these standards.
Materiality approaches will determine the scope of an
account, determining what aspects of biodiversity firms
analyze and report on including dependencies, impacts,
risks, and opportunities. Given that corporate biodi­
versity reporting is intended to portray material actions,
this is the basis from which all other judgments
are made.
4
The ‘comply or explain’ approach allows companies to either
comply with a set of guidelines or, if they choose not to comply, to
provide a detailed explanation for their non-compliance. This approach
is commonly used in areas like corporate governance codes, sustain­
ability reporting, and sometimes financial reporting.
5
The Aligning accounting approaches for nature (Align) pro­
ject. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/align-project-
recommendations-standard-corporate-biodiversity-measurement-
valuation_en.
www.sciencedirect.com
 Table 1
Overview of five key environmental reporting standards.
Framework/Standard/Org
ESRS under CSRD
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 68:101435
Application area and/or audience Focus areas and objectives
Companies operating in the EU.
Audience:
primary users of general financial
reporting as well as other users,
including business partners,
trade unions and social partners,
civil society and
nongovernmental organizations,
governments, analysts, and
academics.
Specify what should be
disclosed as material.
Impacts, risks, and
opportunities in relation to
environmental, social, and
governance.
Sustainability matters,
including the impact related to
biodiversity.
The objective is to enable
users to understand:
(a) how the undertaking
affects biodiversity and
ecosystems, in terms of
material positive and negative,
actual and potential impacts,
including the extent to which it
contributes to the drivers of
biodiversity and ecosystem
loss and degradation
(b) any actions taken, and the
result of such actions, to
prevent or mitigate material
negative actual or potential
impacts and to protect and
restore biodiversity and
ecosystems, and to address
risks and opportunities;
(c) the plans and capacity of
the undertaking to adapt its
strategy and business model
in line with Regional and
Global biodiversity goals
(d) the nature, type, and extent
of the undertaking’s material
risks, dependencies, and
opportunities related to
biodiversity and ecosystems,
and how the undertaking
manages them; and
(e) the financial effects on the
undertaking over the short-,
medium-, and long-term time
horizons of material risks and
opportunities arising.
Measurement approach
Three main characteristics:
magnitude (e.g. amount of
contaminant, noise intensity),
spatial extent (e.g. area of land
contaminated), and temporal
extent (duration of persistence
of contaminant).
Notably, requires disclosures
of targets over time set in
relation to EU goals.
Primary data: collected in situ.
Secondary data: including
geospatial data layers that are
overlaid with geographic
location data of business
activities.
Modeled biodiversity
state data
Reporting requirements Voluntary/mandatory
Identified actual and potential Mandatory for publicly
impacts on biodiversity and traded firms as well as
ecosystems at own site non-publicly traded
locations and in the value larger European firms.
chain, including assessment
criteria applied.
Identified and assessed
dependencies on biodiversity
and ecosystems and their
services at own site locations
and in the value chain,
including assessment criteria
applied, and, if this
assessment includes
ecosystem services that are
disrupted or likely to be.
Identified and assessed
transition and physical risks
and opportunities related to
biodiversity and ecosystems,
including assessment criteria
applied based on its impacts
and dependencies.
Considered systemic risks.
Anticipated financial effects
of material biodiversity- and
ecosystem-related risks and
opportunities
Biodiversity accounting Elliot et al.
3
 4

Table 1 (continued )

Framework/Standard/Org Application area and/or audience Focus areas and objectives
GRI Global; Companies and
organizations of all sizes and
industries, including public and
private sectors.
Audience:
internal and external
stakeholders such as
shareholders, customers,
employees, communities, and
governments
To assess and report on the
impact of an organization’s
operations on biodiversity and
ecosystems.
Measurement approach
The GRI requires material
impacts (determined using
GRI 3) to be identified and
managed, including aspects of
their disclosure requirements,
supply chain impacts, and a
company’s direct impacts.
GRI 101 (2024) contains
extensive guidance on tools
and approaches that may
underpin the disclosure items
mandated.
Reporting requirements
Organizations are
encouraged to report on their
impacts on biodiversity using
the GRI 101 (2024): including
disclosures on: policies to
halt and reverse biodiversity
loss, management of
biodiversity impacts, access
and benefit-sharing,
identification of biodiversity
impacts, locations with
biodiversity impacts, direct
drivers of biodiversity loss,
Voluntary/mandatory
Voluntary, but some
countries and regions
have incorporated GRI
Standards into their
regulatory frameworks.
GRI is based on the
comply or explain
approach.
Climate Finance, Risks and Accounting

changes to the state of

IFRS under ISSB Companies and organizations.
Audience: primary users of
general financial reporting as
well as other stakeholders
Sets our general requirements
for sustainability- and climate-
related disclosures useful to
users of general-purpose
Financial exposures related to
sustainability and climate-
related exposure.
Cross-industry metric
biodiversity, and ecosystem
services.
Disclosure about Currently voluntary. Can
sustainability- and climate- be made mandatory in
related risks and individual jurisdictions.
opportunities that could

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 68:101435

financial reports. Including
impact related to biodiversity.
The objective is to reduce
complexity related to
sustainability disclosure
frameworks and standards,
address the reporting burden
for companies, and improve
reporting efficiency.
categories such as: affect enterprise cash flows,
proportional value of climate- access to financing, and cost
related transition risks, of capital.
physical risks, and transition
opportunities. Capital
deployment toward climate-
related risks and
opportunities, internal carbon
prices, and remuneration
linked to climate-related
considerations.

www.sciencedirect.com
 Table 1 (continued )
Framework/Standard/Org
ISO/TC 331
ISO/CD 17298
Biodiversity
– Strategic and operational
approach for organizations.
www.sciencedirect.com
– Requirements and guidelines
TNFD
consists of 40 individual
Taskforce Members representing
financial institutions, corporates,
and market service providers
with over US$20trn in assets. The
TNFD Co-Chairs, David Craig
and Elizabeth Mrema, lead the
Taskforce.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 68:101435
Application area and/or audience Focus areas and objectives
Companies and organizations.
Audience:
any type of organization (private,
public, NGO, any size).
Companies and financial sector.
Identifying and prioritizing
actions in favor of biodiversity
conservation, restoration, and
sustainable use, while
considering the equitable
sharing of benefits.
The objective is to give a
biodiversity approach aiming
to integrate biodiversity issues
into strategy and improve
environmental, social, and
economic performance.
Risk management
Integration of biodiversity and
strategies
Development of economic
indicators and models.
Provide a risk management
and disclosure framework to
support a shift in global
financial flows away from
nature-negative outcomes
and toward nature-positive
outcomes.
Measurement approach Reporting requirements Voluntary/mandatory
For each planned action, the No reporting requirements. Voluntary.
organization shall associate
performance indicators
applying the Pressure-State
Response.
The organization shall record
the biodiversity indicator
results at regular intervals. The
intervals shall be specific to
each indicator and
relevant for:
– the specific time scale of the
indicator and its specific
cyclic variations;
– the deadlines for achieving
the objectives identified
in 7.2;
– the time scale of the
approach and the action
concerned by the indicator.
Financial exposures related to Identification of financial risks Voluntary for all firms
biodiversity. and opportunities related to and based on loosely
Develop models to assess biodiversity. held comply or explain
financial risks and Reporting data on approach.
opportunities to support biodiversity-related impacts
investment and financing of and dependency of company
nature-related projects. operations and financial risks
Implement carbon reduction and opportunities.
initiatives and track emission
reduction progress.
Biodiversity accounting Elliot et al.
5
6 Climate Finance, Risks and Accounting
Materiality
Materiality is widely discussed in the literature
[3,7,8,10,14,16,17,24,27,35,38,40,46,48,52], and two
types of materiality have been identified [17,45],
namely:
• Financial materiality — which relates to implications
of sustainability on financial performance from the
perspective of owners’ and creditors’ decision-
making.
• Impact materiality — which relates to social and en­
vironmental impacts created by corporate activities on
stakeholders and the natural environment.
In addition, existing and forthcoming frameworks (such
as the ESRS and the TNFD) use the idea of double
materiality. For example, the ESRS offers guidance for
evaluating materiality across various domains and levels
(e.g. type of stakeholder, type of materiality [financial or
impact], and level of disaggregation [country, site, or
individual asset]). On the other hand, the TNFD fra­
mework implicitly applies the concept of double mate­
riality by recommending disclosures pertaining to
nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and oppor­
tunities. These standards different from the ISSB and
the GRI actively embrace a more dynamic approach to
materiality. Although GRI recognizes impact materiality
as a foundational principle, both ISSB and GRI’s stan­
dards on materiality demonstrate a focus on entity-spe­
cific financial considerations. ISSB’s materiality
threshold is customized to each entity, with materiality
judgments influenced by the impact on the decision-
making of financial stakeholders, leaning toward a single
financial materiality perspective ([2]; International Fi­
nancial Reporting Standards Sustainability [1]. Con­
versely, the ESRS, similarly to the GRI, employs a
stakeholder-focused materiality model as opposed to the
ISSB’s entity-specific materiality model more centered
on the entity’s decision-making of specific stakeholders.
The materiality approach embraced by the ISSB pro­
vides continuation between financial and nonfinancial
reporting with its focus on matters that affect investors’
and creditors’ willingness to invest/lend money in the
reporting enterprise, with the interests of society not
being comprehensively addressed [32].6 Adopting the
materiality approach proposed in the ESRS encompasses
the broader societal implications arising from environ­
mental damage. However, it introduces challenges in
determining the extent of disclosure requirements. For
instance, the ESRS materiality model includes adverse
environmental impacts beyond normal enterprise con­
tractual relationships. This might be conceptually robust
6 8
An illustrative case example of this problem is provided
in Appendix A.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 68:101435
(after all there is a shared responsibility for environ­
mental harm) but it is operationally difficult to enact
(and may result in different companies reporting on the
same impacts). This also has the problem of raising
uncertainty about who might have responsibility to act to
address the impact. It is likely that both approaches to
materiality will be present in corporate reporting,
making navigating what the reporting means and what
actions should follow the reporting difficult to specify
clearly.
Assurance
The incidence of independent assurance of sustain­
ability information produced by the world’s biggest
companies (N100) has increased from 30% in 2005 to
63% in 2015.7 The current sustainability assurance
market is dominated by the Big-48 accounting firms,
engineering firms, and consulting firms [4,6]. The Big-4
firms provide global networks and extensive experience
in financial auditing, the engineering firms are renowned
for their technical expertise and comprehension of
complex processes, and consulting firms offer subject-
matter expertise in assuring sustainability reports [4,6].
Alsahali and Malagueño (2022) argued that despite being
a sizeable and rapidly growing market, assurance of
corporate biodiversity reporting is still in its infancy, and
in contrast to broader sustainability assurance, biodi­
versity reporting assurance is dominated by Non-gov­
ernmental organizations (NGO) funded by EU. More
research is needed to understand the evolving market
dynamics for corporate biodiversity reporting, in order to
understand which actors will dominate this market in the
future.
Assurance of sustainability information seeks to enhance
reporting credibility [15,29] in the face of criticisms that
sustainability reports project a more sustainable image
than reality (greenwashing — see Refs. [25,49]). At the
same time, there are also concerns that companies are
failing to disclose all their activities (greenhushing — see
Ref. [22]). Moreover, some companies deliberately
highlight trivial sustainability efforts in their reports,
while conveniently ignoring major environmental con­
cerns (so-called green spotlighting). All of these omis­
sions create false perceptions [50].
Assurance of sustainability reporting seeks to ensure
greater reliability, as stakeholders perceive assured re­
ports as more dependable [20,47]. Nevertheless, con­
cerns have been raised regarding the reliability of
sustainability assurance [23,31]. One concern pertains to
7
The N100 refers to a global sample of 4900 firms constituting the
top 100 companies by revenue in 49 countries.
Big-4 refers to the globally largest accounting firms PwC, KPMG,
Deloitte, and E&Y.
www.sciencedirect.com

the reliance of assurance providers on their professional
judgment to determine materiality [33], with differences
between assurance providers’ definitions of materiality
[21]. Moreover, Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria [12] con­
ducted an analysis of 337 assured sustainability reports
from the mining and energy sectors and concluded that
assurance opinions often lack a meaningful and credible
verification process. Instead, they characterize assurance
as superficial exercises detached from sustainability and
stakeholder concerns. Thus, trustworthy assurance me­
chanisms, including third-party audits and verification
processes, are a pivotal part of the informational gov­
ernance surrounding biodiversity disclosures. These
measures evaluate the methodologies, data sources, and
reporting processes employed by organizations, verifying
that they align with established standards and best
practices. Such assurance might not only foster trans­
parency but also build trust among stakeholders, in­
vestors, and the wider public, ultimately driving greater
corporate accountability and commitment to preserving
biodiversity.
Concluding remarks
Using corporate disclosure as a way of governing beha­
vior is commonplace, with demands for corporate bio­
diversity reporting becoming prevalent. The challenge is
how to ensure robust data collection on management
action that is useful to a broad group of stakeholders and
supports changes in biodiversity impacts. Ideally, re­
porting (appropriately verified) should enhance trans­
parency and cultivate trust among stakeholders and
investors. Moreover, it could empower companies to
make informed decisions, set meaningful biodiversity
goals, and contribute to global efforts to address biodi­
versity loss.
While a variety of reporting regulations exist, they do not
point to a common ground for reporting. Rather, they
address different aspects of corporate biodiversity im­
pact and adopt different conceptions of what is material
to report. Given the early stage of this field, further re­
search is needed on what best practice informational
governance may entail. It is our firm belief that the es­
tablishment of a framework that ensures clarity as to
what notion of materiality informs reporting alongside
robust assurance is part of the solution. However, em­
pirical work illustrating challenges and success stories
are much needed in this field.
Data Availability
No data were used for the research described in the
article.
www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity accounting Elliot et al. 7
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this
paper.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge teh support from MISTRA Biopath
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&
url=https://www.mistrabiopath.se/&ved=2ahUKEwjixMPT8KKFAxV-
GBAIHfXAApMQFnoECAcQAQ&usg=
AOvVaw0CQO81AuZMpur5ASp8V6lD).
Appendix A
Case study: Forico’s materiality approach to
sustainability reporting
To elucidate the complexities of sustainability reporting,
let’s consider a real-world case study of Forico, a forest
management company operating in Tasmania.
Financial materiality approach
In a financial materiality approach, Forico might pri­
marily focus on disclosing financial metrics such as
profitability margins and the increased shareholder value
that comes from the efficient utilization of forest re­
sources. They could also highlight their compliance with
local and international regulations that protect certain
tree species and natural habitats. While this approach
aligns with Forico’s globally certified forests and their
prestigious Banksia Foundation National Sustainability
Award, it could potentially overlook broader impacts on
the ecosystem.
Impact materiality approach
Contrast this with an impact materiality approach that
also considers societal implications. In this scenario,
Forico would go beyond financial metrics and regulatory
compliance. They would disclose the potential or actual
impact of their logging activities on local biodiversity,
perhaps even detailing how they monitor and report on
affected species or ecological indicators like soil and
water quality. Given their existing Natural Capital
Report, Forico might also disclose efforts to engage with
Aboriginal communities, who have been custodians of
the natural environment for generations, as part of their
broader sustainability initiatives.
By comparing these two approaches through the lens of
Forico, it becomes apparent that entity-specific materi­
ality may not capture the full scope of a company’s im­
pact on biodiversity and societal well-being. A more
comprehensive materiality approach would consider the
broader environmental and societal implications, ad­
vocating for a more inclusive reporting framework that
accounts for various stakeholder interests.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 68:101435
8 Climate Finance, Risks and Accounting
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have
been highlighted as:
•• of special interest
1. International Financial Reporting Standards [IFRS]. (2023).
Sustainability Standard S1.
2. Abhayawansa S: Swimming against the tide: back to single
• materiality for sustainability reporting. Sustain Account Manag
Policy J 2022, 13:1361-1385.
The paper examines the concept of materiality in sustainability re­
porting, proposing a new conceptualization that aims to benefit society,
the environment, and investors. Further, it scrutinizes the Exposure Draft
IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-Related
Financial Information, suggesting how financial materiality can be re­
conceptualized to include ‘ double materiality ’ .
3. Adams CA, Alhamood A, He X, Tian J, Wang L, Wang Y: The
Double-Materiality Concept: Application and Issues; 2021.
4. Alsahali KF, Malagueño R: An empirical study of sustainability
• reporting assurance: current trends and new insights. J
Account Organ Change (5) 2022, 18:617-642.
The study investigates global trends in the assurance practices of
sustainability reports and finds that the growth in assurance practices is
not keeping pace with the growth in sustainability reporting. The study
also reveals that companies frequently switch assurance providers and
that accounting firms dominate this market, although engineering firms
are gaining ground.
5. Bakarich KM, Baranek D, O’Brien PE: The current state and
future implications of ESG assurance. Curr Issues Audit 2022,
17:A1-A21.
6. Bakarich KM, Baranek D, O’Brien PE: The current state and
future implications of environmental, social, and governance
assurance. Current Issues in Auditing (1) 2023, 17:A1-A21.
7. Baumüller J, Schaffhauser-Linzatti M-M: In search of materiality
for nonfinancial information — reporting requirements of the
Directive 2014/95/EU. Sustain Manag Forum 2018, 26:101-111.
8. Baumüller J, Sopp K: Double materiality and the shift from non-
financial to European sustainability reporting: review, outlook
and implications. J Appl Account Res 2022, 23:8-28.
9. Benameur KB, Mostafa MM, Hassanein A, Shariff MZ, Al-Shattarat
W: Sustainability reporting scholarly research: a bibliometric
review and a future research agenda. Manag Rev Q 2023,1-44.
10. Betti G, Consolandi C, Eccles RG: The relationship between
investor materiality and the sustainable development goals: a
methodological framework. Sustainability 2018, 10:2248.
11. Blanco-Zaitegi G, Álvarez Etxeberria I, Moneva JM: Biodiversity
accounting and reporting: a systematic literature review and
bibliometric analysis. J Clean Prod 2022, 371:133677.
12. Boiral O, Heras-Saizarbitoria I: Sustainability reporting
assurance: creating stakeholder accountability through
hyperreality? J Clean Prod 2020, 243:118596.
13. Boiral O, Heras-Saizarbitoria I, Brotherton M-C, Bernard J: Ethical
issues in the assurance of sustainability reports: perspectives
from assurance providers. J Bus Ethics 2019, 159:1111-1125.
14. Boissinot J, Goulard S, Salin M, Svartzman R, Weber P-F: Aligning
financial and monetary policies with the concept of double
materiality: rationales, proposals and challenges. LSE Res
Online Doc Econ 2022,1-13.
15. Clarkson P, Li Y, Richardson G, Tsang A: Causes and
consequences of voluntary assurance of CSR reports:
international evidence involving Dow Jones Sustainability
Index inclusion and firm valuation. Account Audit Account J
2019, 32:2451-2474.
16. Consolandi C, Eccles RG, Gabbi G: How material is a material
issue? Stock returns and the financial relevance and financial
intensity of ESG materiality. J Sustain Financ Invest 2022,
12:1045-1068.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 68:101435
17. Cooper SM, Michelon G: Conceptions of materiality in
sustainability reporting frameworks: commonalities,
differences and possibilities. Handbook of Accounting and
Sustainability. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2021.
18. Cosma S, Rimo G, Cosma S: Conservation finance: what are we
not doing? A review and research agenda. J Environ Manag
2023, 336:117649.
19. Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Zayas
CN: Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to
the need for transformative change. Science 2019,
366:eaax3100.
20. Du K, Wu SJ: Does external assurance enhance the credibility
of CSR reports? Evidence from CSR-related misconduct
events in Taiwan. Audit J Pract Theory 2019, 38:101-130.
21. Edgley C, Jones MJ, Atkins J: The adoption of the materiality
concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: a
field study approach. Br Account Rev 2015, 47:1-18.
22. Ettinger A, Grabner-Kräuter S, Okazaki S, Terlutter R: The
desirability of CSR communication versus greenhushing in the
hospitality industry: the customers’ perspective. J Travel Res
2021, 60:618-638.
23. Farooq MB, De Villiers C: How sustainability assurance
engagement scopes are determined, and its impact on capture
and credibility enhancement. Account Audit Account J 2020,
33:417-445.
24. Fiandrino S, Tonelli A, Devalle A: Sustainability materiality
research: a systematic literature review of methods, theories
and academic themes. Qual Res Account Manag 2022,
19:665-695.
25. Glavas D, Grolleau G, Mzoughi N: Greening the greenwashers —
how to push greenwashers towards more sustainable
trajectories. J Clean Prod 2023, 382:135301.
26. Hassan A, Elamer AA, Lodh S, Roberts L, Nandy M: The future of
• non-financial businesses reporting: learning from the Covid-19
pandemic. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 2021,
28:1231-1240.
The paper shows that non-financial activities, including biodiversity, are
linked to human behavior and impact the financial situation of businesses. It
emphasizes that businesses should pay attention to biodiversity (to mitigate
future financial and economic crises) and that accounting has evolved from
producing financial statements to communicating with the broader society
by incorporating environmental information.
27. Jørgensen S, Mjøs A, Pedersen LJT: Sustainability reporting and
approaches to materiality: tensions and potential resolutions.
Sustain Account Manag Policy J 2022, 13:341-361.
28. Karolyi GA, Tobin-De La Puente J: Biodiversity finance: a call for
research into financing nature. Financ Manag 2023, 52:231-251.
29. KPMG 2015, “Currents of Changes: KPMG Survey of Corporate
Social Responsibility Reporting 2015”. KPMG International
Cooperative; 2015. Available at: 〈https://www.google.com/search?
client=firefox-b-e&q=Currents+of+changes%3A+KPMG+survey
+of+corporate+social+responsibility+reporting+2015〉 [Accessed
24 August 2023].
30. Liu C, Wu SS: Green finance, sustainability disclosure and
economic implications. Fulbright Rev Econ Policy 2023, 3:1-24.
31. Michelon G, Patten DM, Romi AM: Creating legitimacy for
sustainability assurance practices: evidence from
sustainability restatements. Eur Account Rev 2019, 28:395-422.
32. Michelon G, Paananen M, Schneider T: Black box accounting:
discounting and disclosure practices of decommissioning
liabilities. ICAS 2020,.
33. Moroney R, Trotman KT: Differences in auditors’ materiality
assessments when auditing financial statements and
sustainability reports. Contemp Account Res 2016, 33:551-575.
34. Morrison LJ, Wilmshurst T, Shimeld S: Counting nature: some
implications of quantifying environmental issues in corporate
reports. Meditari Account Res 2022, 31:912-937.
www.sciencedirect.com

35. Ortar L: Materiality matrixes in sustainability reporting: an
empirical examination. SSRN Electron J 2018,.
36. Österblom H, Bebbington J, Blasiak R, Sobkowiak M, Folke C:
• Transnational corporations, biosphere stewardship, and
sustainable futures. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2022, 47:609-635.
The biosphere crisis underscores that efforts to stop adverse negative
environmental impact have been insufficient and that transformative
change is urgently needed. The authors provide suggestions for how to
align corporate activities with the biosphere and argue that such cor­
porate biosphere stewardship requires more ambitious approaches
taken by corporations, combined with new and formalized public gov­
ernance approaches by governments.
37. Pan C, Qiu J, Chen Z, Pan Y-C: Literature review and content
analysis: internet finance, green finance, and sustainability. In
Proceedings of the Advances in Economics, Business and
Management Research; 2020:126.
38. Puroila J, Mäkelä H: Matter of opinion. Account Audit Account J
2019, 32:1043-1072.
39. Quattrone P: Seeking transparency makes one blind: how to
rethink disclosure, account for nature and make corporations
sustainable. Account Audit Account J 2022, 35:547-566.
40. Raith D: The contest for materiality. What counts as CSR? J
Appl Account Res 2023, 24:134-148.
41. Roberts L, Georgiou N, Hassan AM: Investigating biodiversity
and circular economy disclosure practices: insights from
global firms. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 2023,
30:1053-1069.
42. Schaltegger S, Gibassier D, Maas K: Managing and accounting
• for corporate biodiversity contributions. Mapping the field. Bus
Strategy Environ 2022, 32:2544-2553.
The paper proposes a framework for identifying and assessing a company’s
exposure to and impact on biodiversity, setting priorities for corporate bio­
diversity management, and monitoring the effectiveness of these actions.
The authors argue that while biodiversity management is still in its infancy,
there is an urgent need for research that develops pragmatic management
and accounting approaches to safeguard and re-establish biodiversity.
www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity accounting Elliot et al. 9
43. Smith T, Beagley L, Bull J, Milner-Gulland EJ, Smith M, Vorhies F,
Addison PF: Biodiversity means business: reframing global
biodiversity goals for the private sector. Conserv Lett 2020,
13:e12690.
44. Steuer S, Tröger TH: The role of disclosure in green finance. J
Financ Regul 2022, 8:1-50.
45. TNFD: Nature-related Risk and Opportunity Management and
Disclosure Framework Beta v0.3; 2022. [online] Available at:
〈https://framework.tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/
TNFD_Management_and_Disclosure_Framework_v0–3_B.pdf〉
[Accessed 6 July 2023].
46. Torelli R, Balluchi F, Furlotti K: The materiality assessment and
stakeholder engagement: a content analysis of sustainability
reports. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 2020, 27:470-484.
47. Velte P: Determinants and consequences of corporate social
responsibility assurance: a systematic review of archival
research. Soc Bus Rev 2021, 16:1-25.
48. Wu SR, Shao C, Chen J: Approaches on the screening methods
for materiality in sustainability reporting. Sustainability 2018,
10:3233.
49. Wu Y, Zhang K, Xie J: Bad greenwashing, good greenwashing:
corporate social responsibility and information transparency.
Manag Sci 2020, 66:3095-3112.
50. Yu EP-Y, Luu BV, Chen CH: Greenwashing in environmental,
social and governance disclosures. Res Int Bus Financ 2020,
52:101192.
51. Zhang Y, Tariq A, Hughes AC, Hong D, Wei F, Sun H, Ma K:
Challenges and solutions to biodiversity conservation in arid
lands. Sci Total Environ 2023, 857:159695.
52. Zhou Y, Lamberton G, Charles MB: An explanatory model of
materiality in sustainability accounting: integrating
accountability and stakeholder heterogeneity. Sustainability
2023, 15:2700.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2024, 68:101435